Do Hedge Fund Managers really Love Mitt Romney and Hate Obama?

New York (HedgeCo.Net) – In her piece in The New Yorker, Chrystia Freeland asks why do Bilionaires feel victimized by Barack Obama. Weighing in on the topic over the weekend, bloggers have been speculating on whether Hedge Fundies are rooting for Barack Obama, or prefer that the former Hedge Fund Manager, Mitt Romney is elected as the next President of the United States.

Felix Solomon, writing for Reuters, brings some balance into the discussion and suggests that Financiers are the most “alpha of all billionaires” and that “from a purely tactical perspective it makes all the sense in the world for them to go on the offensive against Obama. After all, they might have it good now, but they’d have it even better under Romney.”

While Mitt Romney and the Republican platform may appeal to a wealthier demographic, they do not hold the monopoly on hedge fund managers support.

Tom Steyer, Billionaire and founder of hedge fund Farallon Capital Management took the stage at the Democratic National Convention in the beginning of September. Where the Republicans have support from the Koch brothers and other oil industry moguls, others who have made their fortune in technology and alternative energy see a Democratic administration as a better alternative.

In his speech to the DNC, Top Steyer said “During the last several years we’ve seen tremendous progress on new technologies that can make us energy independent and create thousands of jobs. This is about investing for the long haul, not for a quick and dirty buck. This is about control of our destiny by doing what Americans do best – by out-innovating, out-hustling and out-thinking our competitors.”

In a discussion with Chrystia Freeland, Anthony Scaramucci, hedge fund manager and Mitt Romney Supporter, accredited politicization of the ultra-wealthy to the rise in Super PACs “That’s what you see happening in the hedge-fund community, because they now have the power, because of [the Super PAC] Citizens United, to aggregate capital into political-action committees and to influence the debate.”